CANZUK

[spmetla]

Canada, Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom.

Not sure what hole I was hiding in but I hadn't seen this concept floated even though it's been about for a while. Guess it's a alternate for the above countries if the UK leaves the EU, NAFTA breaks down between US and Canada and other things.

http://www.canzukinternational.com/about

CANZUK International was founded in January 2015 as The Commonwealth Freedom of Movement Organisation, and is the world’s leading non-profit organisation advocating freedom of movement, free trade and foreign policy coordination between Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom (the “CANZUK” countries).

Our campaign advocates closer cooperation between these four nations so they may build upon existing economic, diplomatic and institutional ties to forge a cohesive alliance of nation-states with a truly global outlook.

Our proposals ensure that Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom not only sustain economic prosperity and quality of life, but develop travel and employment opportunities for each of their citizens as part of a global initiative of Commonwealth countries.

Our work has been recognised by senior government officials and diplomats across the world, and we have engaged millions of citizens within these countries to support and campaign for our proposals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANZUK

Contrary views[edit]
Although the UK is in the process of leaving the EU, CANZUK is not legally credible until the UK's departure.[19]

Critics such as Nick Cohen suggest that CANZUK is a 'fantasy' and that the project would not make sense as a geo-political construct in the 21st Century, here he emphasises the gradual separation that has occurred between each of the states in both legal and political culture since the end of the British Empire.[20] Additionally, it has been argued that geographical separation might still limit the value of any such union, this is in keeping with mainstream economic opinion that considers the 'distance and the size of trading partners matter more than historical links in determining trading relationships between countries'.[21]

In academia, Duncan Bell criticises contemporary 'Anglospheric discourse' and concludes that modern political commentary is 'a pale imitation of previous iterations' lacking broad spectrum support across the political left-right dichotomy.[22]

Public opinion[edit]
Public opinion polling conducted by YouGov in 2015 found that 58% of British people would support freedom of movement and work between the citizens of the United Kingdom and the citizens of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, with 19% opposed to the idea and 23% undecided.[23] 70% of Australians said they were supportive of the proposal, with 10% opposed to it; 75% of Canadians said they supported the idea and 15% were opposed to it and 82% of New Zealanders stated that they supported the idea, with 10% opposed.[24] The research also found that British people valued free mobility between the UK and Canada, Australia and New Zealand higher than they did with free mobility between the UK and EU at 46% to 35%.[24]

Further polling conducted in January 2017 found support for free movement of people and goods with certain limitations on citizens claiming tax-funded payments on entry across the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand to be 64% in the UK, 72% in Australia, 77% in Canada and 81% in New Zealand, with undecideds included.[25]

It is an interesting concept, pooling economic power, military power, and markets would make CANZUK a large world player. The major issue of course be who in their right mind would want to give up more of their regional power to another supra-national organization. Australians probably wouldn't want Canada and the UK determining their economic policies. New Zealand would probably not be happy paying taxes for a national defense it doesn't really need.
On the upside it would provide a united front against regional competitors. A CANZUK negotiating with China, the US, or the EU would have more weight than any of the member nations individually. By pooling defense budgets and standardizing equipment they'd reduce per-unit cost without having to join US or EU dominated multi-national development of major defense items (aircraft, ships, subs, vehicles, tanks).

It would also in effect justify the UK/CANZUK seat on the security council by remaining a great power of sorts which would also allow it to more strongly make it's opinion felt as opposed to being the US little brother.

Obstacles such an organization would have would certainly be in the independent movements. Would Quebec want to be part of such a hypothetical greater anglosphere? Would Scotland still peruse total independence such as Ireland, independence and join the EU, or change it to more independence within CANZUK turning it into CANZNIWES (Change UK to Northern Ireland, Wales, England Scotland). Also would these nations want to retain the Queen as Head of State and accept London as it's capital organizational Capital while 'English' affairs would be represented in a new separate English Parliament. Perhaps keep the Queen and monarchy there but have a new Capital in a newly formed non-State organization like the US has with the District of Columbia.

Realistically I couldn't see this happening short of a very hard UK-EU divorce and a total dissolution of NAFTA. It seems like a dreamy way to try and rebuild empire and be a big fish in the pond again. However if the US continues to slowly disengage from the world and the EU lacks the will to lead then perhaps a CANZUK organization could represent or lead when liberal-democratic ideas are challenged by regional powers.

Arguments for it:
In the Trump era, the plan for a Canadian-U.K.-Australia-New Zealand trade alliance is quickly catching on
http://business.financialpost.com/op...ly-catching-on

CANZUK defence alliance: Start small, think big
https://canzuk.org/canzuk_defence_al..._think_big.php

All the Queen's Ships
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proce...l-queens-ships

CANZUK: after Brexit, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Britain can unite as a pillar of Western civilisation
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...d-britain-can/

Arguments against it:
Sentiments and statistics: why CANZUK won’t fly
https://medium.com/@dijdowell/sentim...ly-7bd0cef28ff

Why CANZUK is a completely bollocks idea
http://peterjnorth.blogspot.com/2017...ocks-idea.html

[Furunculus]

It is simpler than that:
There is value in cooperation and collaboration, it has been the foundation of every geopolitical alliance the world has ever seen.
But it is always a trade off between your political weight, and the congruence of your aims with the relative weight of those you seek to influence.

How much are you willing to compromise to achieve a given aim? How much is that aim worth, to you?

Every geopolitical alliance reaches a point where 'their' fundamental aims may have a price that you are no longer willing to pay.
The EU being a case in point. Canzuk, from this point of view, is nothing more than an attempt to find common aims at a lower price.
Its great, so long as it doesn't reach beyond the calculation of that same metric.

[Pannonian]

AFAIK Australia and New Zealand are already regional powers, with Australia looking towards SE Asia and New Zealand at SW Pacific. The UK isn't going to be joining anything there, and they don't need the UK to be a power in these regions. If anything, Australia are more likely to break further away from the existing tenuous political links with the UK. And if Australia need military backup in any confrontation in that region; Singapore is the signal lesson. And the UK is further reducing its military.

[Furunculus]

AFAIK Australia and New Zealand are already regional powers, with Australia looking towards SE Asia and New Zealand at SW Pacific. The UK isn't going to be joining anything there, and they don't need the UK to be a power in these regions. If anything, Australia are more likely to break further away from the existing tenuous political links with the UK. And if Australia need military backup in any confrontation in that region; Singapore is the signal lesson. And the UK is further reducing its military.

I always like to start from that nebulous construct: the great power.
Which I have always defined as a Middle power ** that is also a Regional power *** [and] without polar opposition within its own region.

So Canada would be a good example of a Middle power, but I would not consider it a Regional power.
India, for example, is a good example of a Regional Power, that is also a Middle Power.
However, that last part of my definition is important, because the resource required to contest and control its polar opposition within its own region, prevents it being considered a Great Power.
I would consider France and Britain to be Great Powers, though both are hanging in there by the skin of their teeth (particularly france!).

Do Australia and NZ (and the other FPDA countries) have an interest in seeking alliance with France and Great Britain?

The answer to that depends on whether they follow the eastern or the western method of geopolitics.
Bandwagoning or Balancing:
The east tends to be characterised by Bandwagoning - where the emergence of a new Regional hegemon results in lesser powers falling into its orbit, and following its geopolitical preferences.
Hence America has an absolute need to support Taiwan and Korea, because if it was seen to falter on either one it would likely lose both, then Japan would follow, and Asia would be entirely within the orbit of China.
The west tends to be characterised by Balancing - where the emergence of a new Regional hegemon results in a coalescence of lesser powers against the hegemon, often bringing in outside support.
The best example here is the european wars of the 19th Century. The triple-entente, the entente-cordiale, the anglo-polish agreement. Roping in America to swing the outcome on both occasions.

So, how do Australia and NZ respond to the rise of China?
I would say they are firmly in the Balancing category:

Cooperation between the United States, Japan, Australia, and India is here to stay:
https://thediplomat.com/2017/11/take...-quad-is-back/

The durian pact: the Five Power Defence Arrangements:
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/du...-arrangements/

The Importance of Australia to the United States:
https://geopoliticalfutures.com/the-...united-states/

So, to wheel this back around to the original question mark about Britain's utility to Australia:

Does Australia want the active support of one of the worlds few real Great Powers, that possesses the worlds second most capable expeditionary military function, and has demonstrated time and time again a willingness to employ it for elective warfare?

Unless they are clearly lost possession of their faculties, YES!
Does the same hold true for Japan, and the other FPDA countries? Yes it does.

---------------------------------------------------

http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/...43292-0222.xml

** "middle powers can be distinguished from superpowers and smaller powers because of their foreign policy behaviour – middle powers carve out a niche for themselves by pursuing a narrow range and particular types of foreign policy interest. In this way middle powers are countries that use their relative diplomatic skills in the service of international peace and stability."

*** "A regional power is a state that projects influence in a specific region. If this power capability is unrivaled in its region, the state could rise to the level of a regional hegemon. The regional powers display comparatively high military, economic, political, and ideological capabilities enabling them to shape their regional security agenda."

[Pannonian]

When was the last time Australia looked to Britain for anything outside intelligence networking? They've locked themselves into the US Pacific front. We and Australia are similar to the smaller Italian city states, each with our own identities, but all looking towards America's Rome. We're not going to develop any relationship outside our mutual links with the US.

[Furunculus]

history can be a prison, my friend.

the last 250 years have been the atlantic centuries, where european geopolitics touched the world.
We are now a backwater.

The next 250 years will be the pacific centuries, where asian geopolitics will touch us.
Any european nation that see's itself as a do-er (rather than a taker) will be going there.

That list of european do-er's can be summed as; Britain and France.
As long as we maintain useful expeditionary capability, relative to that offered by the rest of the world (and the will to use it), then we will be of interest to those asian nations.